Not sure why a bunch of professional pilots would support increasing the mandatory retirement age to 67 with 0 data or science backing up the seemingly arbitrary decision. It's like hopping in an airplane to go fly without filing a flight plan.

From reading through here and other comments on various social media platforms it has become increasingly clear that the supporters of age 67 aren't interested in data and facts. They're only interested in screaming their slogan, "LeT eXpErIenCeD pIlOts Fly!" ...Experienced pilots want to fly to fly to Milan and Brussels every other Tuesday. Not to Cleveland, New York, and Des Moines on 3 and 4-leg /day trips every week. There is no indication that ICAO is going to raise the age from 65 to 67 if the U.S. does.

This scenario is entirely different than age 60-65. It could lead to displacements for junior pilots, reopening up recently-inked contracts with potentially less favorable economic winds, and generally increasing costs for the airlines and for passengers, which can impact profit sharing.

Why aren't we being professionals and calling for studies to be conducted to see what a proper retirement age might be? Maybe its 70? We just don't know because we aren't studying it, and those who hold the flying public's trust the most are advocating for arbitrary changes. Doesn't seem very professional to me. Reeks of greed and a self-serving agenda.